Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

The framers of our Constitution gave carte blance protection to “speech” and “the press”. They did not grant that anyone was then in possession of complete and unalloyed truth, and it was impossible that they should be able to a priori institutionalize the truth of a future such human paragon even if she/he/it were to arrive.

At the time of the framing, the 1830s advent of mass marketing was in the distant future. Since that era, journalism has positioned itself as the embodiment of nonpartisan truth-telling, and used its enormous propaganda power to make the burden of proof of any “bias” essentially infinite. If somehow you nail them dead to rights in consistent tendentiousness, they will merely shrug and change the subject. And the press is protected by the First Amendment. That is where conservatives have always been stuck.

And make no mistake, conservatives are right to think that journalism is their opponent. Examples abound so that any conservative must scratch his/her head and ask “Why?” Why do those whose job it is to tell the truth tell it so tendentiously, and even lie? The answer is bound and gagged, and lying on your doorstep in plain sight. The money in the business of journalism is in entertainment, not truth. It is that imperative to entertain which produces the perspective of journalism.

And that journalism does indeed have a perspective is demonstrated every day in what it considers a good news story, and what is no news story at all. Part of that perspective is that news must be new--fresh today--as if the events of every new day were of equal importance with the events of all other days. So journalism is superficial. Journalism is negative as well, because the bad news is best suited to keep the audience from daring to ignore the news. Those two characteristics predominate in the perspective of journalism.

But how is that related to political bias? Since superficiality and negativity are anthema to conservatives there is inherent conflict between journalism and conservatism.. By contrast, and whatever pious intentions the journalist might have, political liberalism simply aligns itself with whatever journalism deems a “good story.” Journalists would have to work to create differences between journalism and liberalism, and simply lack any motive to do so. Indeed, the echo chamber of political “liberalism” aids the journalist--and since liberalism consistently exacerbates the issues it addresses, successful liberal politicians make plenty of bad news to report.

The First Amendment which protects the expression of opinion must also be understood to protect claims by people of infallibility--and to forbid claims of infallibility to be made by the government. What, after all, is the point of elections if the government is infallible? Clearly the free criticism of the government is at the heart of freedom of speech and press. Freedom, that is, of communication.

By formatting the bands and standardizing the bandwiths the government actually created broadcasting as we know it. The FCC regulates broadcasting--licensing a handful of priveledged people to broadcast at different frequency bands in particular locations. That is something not contemplated in the First Amendment, and which should never pass constitutional muster if applied to the literal press. Not only so, but the FCC requires application for renewal on the basis that a licensee broadcaster is “operating in the public interest as a public trustee.” That is a breathtaking departure from the First Amendment.

No one questions the political power of broadcasting; the broadcasters themselves obviously sell that viewpoint when they are taking money for political advertising. What does it mean, therefore, when the government (FCC) creates a political venue which transcends the literal press? And what does it mean when the government excludes you and me--and almost everyone else--from that venue in favor of a few priviledged licensees? And what does it mean when the government maintains the right to pull the license of anyone it does allow to participate in that venue? It means a government far outside its First Amendment limits. When it comes to broadcasting and the FCC, clearly the First Amendment has nothing to do with the case.

The problem of journalism’s control of the venue of argument would be ameliorated if we could get them into court. In front of SCOTUS they would not be permitted to use their mighty megaphones. And to get to court all it takes is the filing of a civil suit. A lawsuit must be filed against broadcast journalism, naming not only the broadcast licensees, but the FCC.

We saw the tendency of broadcast journalism in the past election, when the delay in calling any given State for Bush was out of all proportion to the delay in calling a state for Gore, the margin of victory being similar--and, most notoriously, the state of Florida was wrongly called for Gore in time to suppress legal voting in the Central Time Zone portion of the state, to the detriment of Bush and very nearly turning the election. That was electioneering over the regulated airwaves on election day, quite on a par with the impact that illegal electioneering inside a polling place would have. It was an enormous tort.

And it is on that basis that someone should sue the socks off the FCC and all of broadcast journalism.

Journalism has a simbiotic relation with liberal Democrat politicians, journalists and liberal politicians are interchangable parts. Print journalism is only part of the press (which also includes books and magazines and, it should be argued, the internet), and broadcast journalism is no part of the press at all. Liberals never take issue with the perspective of journalism, so liberal politicians and journalists are interchangable parts. The FCC compromises my ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas by giving preferential access addresses to broadcasters, thus advantaging its licensees over me. And broadcast journalism, with the imprimatur of the government, casts a long shadow over elections. Its role in our political life is illegitimate.

The First Amendment, far from guaranteeing that journalism will be the truth, protects your right to speak and print your fallible opinion. Appeal to the First Amendment is appeal to the right to be, by the government or anyone else’s lights, wrong. A claim of objectivity has nothing to do with the case; we all think our own opinions are right.

When the Constitution was written communication from one end of the country to the othe could take weeks. Our republic is designed to work admirably if most of the electorate is not up to date on every cause celebre. Leave aside traffic and weather, and broadcast journalism essentially never tells you anything that you need to know on a real-time basis.

Rush mentioned this article on his show today.

Radio hosts are the talkers; they wear their banners openly as they proclaim who and what they are. Sure, they may be brash and hyperbolic, loud and oft-sardonic, but there is no pretense, little guile, and you know what they want you to believe. You know what they're sellin' and if you're buyin'.

The mainstream media, however, is a shill. Oh, not shills working with talk radio, of course, as their talkers are entities such as MoveOn.org and Media Matters, but they are shills nonetheless. They masquerade as impartial purveyors of information, almost-automatons who, like Joe Friday, are just interested in the facts, ma'am. They flutter their eyes and read their Teleprompters, and we are to believe God graced them with a singular ability to render facts uncolored by personal perspective

It's true, except are we actually talking about anything other than journalism here? Movies? Fictional dramas on TV? No, it is journalism we are actually talking about - and specifically, Big Journalism - The New York Times and a bunch of other institutions which wouldn't be caught dead suggesting that The New York Times is anything other than objective. The various institutions of Big Journalism shill for each other.
First and foremost, Big Journalism is out for the interests of Big Journalism. Not merely their own institution within Big Journalism - because of the mutually assured destruction principle. Everyone in Big Journalism knows that their continued employment within Big Journalism is contingent on going along and getting along with all the rest of Big Journalism.

their talkers are entities such as MoveOn.org and Media Matters

MoveOn.org is a creature of the Internet, while Big Journalism functioned the same way when it persecuted Joe McCarthy back in the 1950s as it does today. No, the interests Big Journalism shills for are its own. It is only necessary to understand Big Journalism's economic interest to understand "liberalism." Big Journalism's interest is to be important, and thereby to attract an audience for fun and profit (i.e., advertisers). Big Journalism promotes its own importance by subverting the reputations of everyone who tries to be important by providing necessities to the public. Is food important? Alar is poisoning your children when they eat an apple! Is security important? The police (and the military) are incompetent and brutal. Does everyone depend on automobiles? The oil companies don't provide enough fuel, and they pollute too much.
No, Big Journalism doesn't shill for others, it shills on its own account. The reason it seems to shill for the Democratic Party is simply that the Republican Party represents the people whom Big Journalism trashes for its own benefit - and Democrats do not. Big Journalism assigns positive labels to those who denigrate the producers of goods and services, and derogatory labels to those who stand up for the producers. Unionists, plaintiff lawyers, and Democratic politicians fit the former category, and are called "liberals" or "progressives."
The Barker and the Shill: The Fraud of the Fairness Doctrine
AmericanThinker.com | January 24, 2007 | Selwyn Duke

I don't know where you're from, but I have seen newspapers across the board censor conservative views in their editorial sections, and refuse to allow conservatives to purchase space to publish conservative views.

I have no reason at all to doubt it. That's what the First Amendment says - that you have no business in court trying to make a paper print, for a fee or gratis, anything the owner of that paper doesn't want to print.

Don't buy the idiocy that ~~foreign~~ ownership of our media is not a problem.

Of course ownership of media is an issue. It is an issue because journalism is politics. It was politics when Ben Franklin had a media empire in the colonies before and during the revolution, it was politics when Hamilton and Jefferson sponsored competing newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles, it was politics when the sections of the country were breaking apart, it was politics when Hearst was getting us into war with Spain.
Journalism has never stopped being politics. Journalism especially became hyper-political when it started making the most political claim of all - the claim of being objective, which as far as I can discern is indistinguishable from a claim of wisdom. That matters because since Socrates we have understood that claiming to be wise is a power play. If you claim to be wise, you shut off debate. If you claim to be wise, you are engaged in sophistry. If you can get away with claiming to be wise, you can get away with saying that "it depends on the meaning of 'is'."
And of course, FCC licensing of broadcasters is predicated on the idea that broadcast journalism can mimic The New York Times and other hyperpolitical print journals - and that doing so proves that they are broadcasting in the public interest! A perfectly absurd rationale.
Toll Road Giant Buys Newspapers to Silence Critics theNewspaper.com ^ | January 26, 2007 | theNewspaper.com

O’Sullivan’s First Law:

All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.
O'Sullivan was right, but his article announcing his law lamely cited a few examples and just left it. The reason his law is true lies in the Newspeak definitions of ideological labels:

objective: reliably promoting the interests of Big Journalism. (usage: always applied to journalists who are members in good standing; never applied to anyone but a journalist)

liberal: see "objective," except that the usage is reversed: (usage: never applied to journalists; always applied to anyone but a journalist)

progressive: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."

moderate: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."

centrist: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."

conservative: rejecting the idea that journalism is a higher calling than providing food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and security; adhering to the dictum of Theodore Roosevelt that:
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena
(usage: applies to people who - unlike those labeled liberal/progressive/moderate/centrist, cannot become "objective" by getting a job as a journalist, and probably cannot even get a job as a journalist.)(antonym:"objective")

"right-wing": see, "conservative."

Notice that "objective," "moderate," and "centrist" are classical virtues and are positive labels; likewise "liberal" and "progressive" are American virtues and are positive labels - at least to the extent that their Newspeak definitions have not been realized by the public. OTOH "conservatism" is not an American virtue - drilling for oil or developing genetically modified corn, IOW progress, is something American "conservatives" favor.
When "Tolerant" People Attack
The Inside Straight ^ | 01/27/07 | vanity

the MSM has a very dangerous model - "if it bleeds, it leads." The definition of "news" is biased toward the unpleasant and the bizarre. That may be understandable for domestic news. We all live in the U.S. and thus can judge for ourselves the "default condition" of day-to-day life. It is not necessary to report the cars that didn't crash or the babies that were born because in some sense we are aware of them. But when we must rely on the MSM for our understanding of Iraq, knowledge of the default condition is absent.

. . . the MSM does not see it as its duty or role to report good news - the schools opened, the hospitals repaired, the water delivered. They do not want to be pollyannas - if the default condition of Iraq is indeed characterized by bad news, then we want to know that; but is it?

I long ago figured out that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a definition of what is important which places the business concern of the journalist above the national interest. In fact, conservatism might be defined as:
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - Theodore Roosevelt
. . . and Big Journalism is an establishment which exists only as the critic and yet is committed to the idea that journalism is more important than any other endeavor - bar none.
Viewed in that light, it is only to be expected that journalism is anti conservative; conservatives value what journalism exists to denigrate.
How do we know if we are winning or losing in Iraq?
American Thinker ^ | January 19, 2007 | Greg Richards

instead of asking herself "What is the most important 24 minutes of information I can present tonight," [Ms. Couric] asks her viewers to suggest a clever slogan for her sign off.

Selfabsorbtion. It is crashingly obvious in Ms. Couric when pointed out here, but it is the besetting sin of Big Journalism - indeed, of all of "the media" generally. It is I suppose the natural consequence of the one-way nature of "the media," and is moderated in talk radio - and certainly in the Internet - by the relative prominence of vox populi feedback.
In journalism, selfabsorbtion is manifested in things like the McCain-Feingold bill which presumes to obliterate the free speech, press, and assembly rights of the common people while exalting Big Journalism as being "in the public interest." And moves to require that the president stage shows - "press conferences" - at which only representatives of Big Journalism are present and able to speak to the president. And "press shield" laws which presume to give representatives of Big Journalism immunity from laws governing the people generally. And presumption that representatives of Big Journalism can take the protection of the First Amendment for granted without any implication that they are, specifically, Americans - let alone patrioitic Americans.
All of which boils down to the presumption that representatives of Big Journalism hold titles of nobility, are better than the rest of us.

Good Night & Good Grief
Give 'n Go ^ | January 31, 2007 | J. Martini

The Government will just state that ABCCBSNBC etc is not liberal or slanted and taking a side...isn't that what they are doing right now?

67 posted on 01/31/2007 8:44:43 AM EST by Getsmart64

Yes, that is precisely what the government (the FCC and the FEC) are doing now. It is in a real sense what they exist to do.

To: Getsmart64 I believe we have what is called a Supreme Court, currently and for the coming future conservative leaning, we have what is called Due Process rights which does not allow for selective prosecution, how a liberal station would be recused from following that doctrine I fail to see.

69 posted on 01/31/2007 11:14:18 AM EST by pennboricua

This is all about the interest of Big Journalism, which Big Journalism conflates with the interest of the public. It would take major stones for Roberts, Alita, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy to rule correctly on the merits of a lawsuit against the FCC and the FEC. But Kennedy was on the side of Thomas et al on the case that upheld McCain. If his vote held as in that four-year ago case, and Roberts and Alito went with him, there would be a 5-4 majority voting to vindicate our constitutional rights.

To: pennboricua Are you saying that someone will take the notion that the MSM leans left all the way to the SC? Are you saying that someone will take a newspaper all the way to the SC to show that they are mis-leading or stating down right lies about current issues when a TV station is using their articles as a basis for it's bias????..That's crazy....

70 posted on 01/31/2007 12:43:22 PM EST by Getsmart64

Given that we can't count on Bush - after all, he signed McCain - and that there are enough McCainiacs in the Senate to vote for cloture on the issue there, It seems all too likely that we will have no other recourse to keep FreeRepublic online. Crazy it may be, considering the propaganda barrage that Big Journalism - indeed all of the media - would launch against a faithful reading of the Constitution on this issue, our problem in a legal sense would not be to find a coherent legal rationale for a lawsuit, but to find a rationale which would allow SCOTUS to allow us to keep going without making such a broad ruling that it would be an unacceptably complete transformation of the media landscape. A ruling so dramatic, IOW, that Clarence Thomas would be fully revenged on Big Journalism.
The facts are these:

The second Amendment comes nearer to saying the you have a duty to own a rifle (for a "necessary" militia) than the First Amendment comes to saying that ownership of a printing press by the Sultzberger family is of any benefit to the Republic. It is just something they are allowed to do, not something that is a public service like joining the National Guard.

The Sultzbergers, Mrs. Graham, nor any other owner of a press has a title of nobility which entitles any of them - or all of them - to define "fairness" or "objectivity" in a way that the government has a right to rely on and/or which can bind the people. For the government to do that would be to make a "law bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Presumptively The New York Times and The Washington Post - and Human Rights and The Nation and National Review - are equally political. None of them can be cited in a court of law as authoritatively correct and objective as regards any political matter (or in any matter at all without the writer being subjected to the laws of perjury and to cross examination). Half the truth may be a great lie (Franklin), and it is not possible to prove that no such "great lie" exists in any newspaper. That is an unprovable negative.

Therefore, what The New York Times does or does not report does not obligate you or me to accept as objective or fair. And yet that is precisely what we are told by the FCC that we must respect; we may not on our own initiative rebut any FCC licensee by transmitting without an FCC license. The FCC licenses broadcasters to "broadcast in the public interest," and the broadcasters - lacking any other standard of fairness - seize on the standard of what print journalism goes along with.

Since journalism doesn't produce food or shelter or clothing or security, journalism - whether print or broadcast - has an incentive to promote talk over doing. Every journalist has the option of abandoning himself to the proposition that, pace Theodore Roosevelt, the critic not only counts but is more important than "the man who is actually in the arena," providing our necessities. If he does so, all who do likewise will acclaim him to be "objective" - even as he does likewise for them. If he does not do so, he is "not a journalist, not objective." Precisely as Rush Limbaugh, or any other conservative commentator, is treated by Big Jounalism.

Those who abandon themselves to the idea that criticism is more creditable than actual performance, but are not journalists, are given positive labels by those who are journalists. They are called "progressives" or "moderates" or "centrists" or "liberals." Any such person who gets a job as a journalist, having the selfsame attitude as all other journalists, instantly becomes labeled by all the others as "objective." Anyone who does not commit himself that way, is called a "conservative" - and probably cannot get hired as a journalist at all, let alone be considered "objective."

It follows that the Fairness Doctrine's - and McCain-Feingold's - implicit division of perspectives into three camps:

"conservative"
"liberal"
"objective journalist"
is a false dichotomy. There are conservatives and liberals, in a general sense, but there is not a dime's worth of difference between the perspective of a "liberal" and that of an "objective" journalist.

Since freedom of speech and of press is explicit in the First Amendment, and since the framers did not even think that a bill of rights was necessary (meaning that the body of the Constitution should be interpreted as implying everything in the Bill of Rights, and possibly more), the burden of proof that there is a difference between the perspective of "objective" journalism and that of "liberalism" logically is not to be presumed but proven by its advocates. And IMHO it cannot be proved. I think that the proposition that there is a difference between "liberalism" and "objective journalism" can be disprove.
Kucinich to reintroduce Fairness Doctrine Censorship
Fox News | 1/30/07

I know this is like regretting the passing of the dinosaurs (i.e., they ain't coming back) but it wouldn't be such a depressing prospect if we at least had some media outlets that would do their jobs.

Ah, but what is "their job?"

Part of their job is to say that giving us "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is the job they do.

And part of their job is to report enough of the truth to keep people believing.

But the real job of journalist is to promote journalism. They don't just promote their own newspaper, they promote the institution of journalism generally.

They promote journalism by claiming that journalism is objective, which is pretty much the same thing as claiming that journalism is wise.

They promote journalism negatively, by attacking the reputations of everyone who undertakes to do anything important.

And they promote journalism by promoting anyone else who promotes criticism of the productive, the exemplars of humility, and the valiant. Which is why they call such people "progressives" or "liberals."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1780597/posts?page=105#105

If you wonder how it came to be generally acknowledged "fact," accepted by all men of good will, that Joe McCarthy was a monster, that Alger Hiss was innocent, that mankind is causing global warming and that we're losing the war in Iraq, try watching the rewriting of history nightly on MSNBC. Don't forget to bring your time machine.

Well put, as always. She has the libs nailed --- don't we all?? They are too easy now.

For many FReepers, yes - but by no means all. You still see FReepers taking for granted that Edward R. Murrow was the straight shooter he claimed (and was acclaimed by all of journalism, not just CBS News) to be. And yet he was leading the pack on putting the hit on the reputation of Joe McCarthy. Who, as Ann so ably pointed out in Treason, was far from being the ruthless demagogue portrayed by "objective" journalism. If I say, "McCarthy was a reasonable man" you recoil - because you have been conditioned to head for the tall grass when his name is mentioned.
The claim that McCarthy was a dangerous demagogue is of a piece with the claim that the US is forced to accept defeat in Iraq because we have lost, not 50,000 men as in Vietnam but 3000 - including accidents. We lose far more people to auto accidents in a year - but no one seriously suggests banning the automobile. Absurdities are accepted as unassailable facts if they are repeated often enough and not disputed vigorously. And when I say "vigorously," I mean as in "suing the socks off of someone."
Yellowcake and yellow journalism (ann coulter)
World Net Daily ^ | February 7, 2007 | Ann Coulter

"The MSM" this, and "the MSM" that.
It isn't movies, it isn't fictional TV dramas, and it isn't books - it is Big Journalism. Big Journalism is far too agile to run away from; there really is no choice but to run at it (note the singular; if you miss ABC News you can read The New York Times, if you miss the Times you can read the Washington Post, and so on. Indeed, the very claim that "journalism is objective" is an assertion of journalism's unity. So that is another reason the plural "media" is off point).
Big Journalism systematically channels political discourse by means of its Newspeak definitions of ideological labels:

objective: reliably promoting the interests of Big Journalism. (usage: always applied to journalists who are members in good standing; never applied to anyone but a journalist)

liberal: see "objective," except that the usage is reversed: (usage: never applied to journalists)

progressive: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal")

moderate: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal")

centrist: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal")

conservative: rejecting the idea that journalism is a higher calling than providing food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and security; adhering to the dictum of Theodore Roosevelt that:
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena
(usage: applies to people who - unlike those labeled liberal/progressive/moderate/centrist, cannot become "objective" by getting a job as a journalist, and probably cannot even get a job as a journalist.)(antonym:"objective")

"right-wing": see, "conservative."

Notice that "objective," "moderate," and "centrist" are classical virtues and are positive labels; likewise "liberal" and "progressive" are American virtues and are positive labels - at least to the extent that their Newspeak definitions are not understood by the public.
OTOH "conservatism" is not an American virtue. The obvious irony is, of course, that American "conservatives" favor progress and new development, whereas American "progressives" oppose nuclear power, drilling for oil, irradiation for food preservation, or developing genetically modified corn.

IMHO Rush is not atypical of conservative talk hosts, and I think a legitimate case can be made that he is a philosopher. Philo = "love of" Sophy = "wisdom". He accepts that wisdom is the goal but does not argue from the assumption that he is wise. Oh, he engages in mock braggadocio about his great talent and keen intellect, but he never says "it's true because I say so and since I am wise that settles the matter." Nor any logical equivalent of it. He marshals facts and logic to make his point, and if he finally is grounded on Christian principles he will be open about that, too.
OTOH "liberals" routinely do the logical equivalent of the "I am wise so I am right and you are wrong" thing, which is sophistry. The root of the method they use for obscuring the fact that that is what they are doing is indirect self-congratulation - the old mutual admiration society routine. It starts with journalists, who label all journalists - not just those in their own organization but all journalists - as being "objective." Anyone not in that mutual admiration society is "not a journalist, not objective."
Journalists also positively label all like-minded people who are not journalists. Those who are not journalists are never to be labeled "objective," but they are given labels which are either classical virtues or specifically American virtues. "Moderate" is an example of a classical virtue, and "liberal" (as we have to remind ourselves) was an American virtue before the socialists ran the word into the ground. "Progressive" is an American virtue, since all Americans believe in progress (as why should we not? Today we all live better than Queen Victoria did, considering the health care we enjoy as well as our transportation and innumerable conveniences). And of course all the "moderate"/"liberal"/"progressive" paragons of virtue reciprocate by labeling journalists "objective."
A nice, tight argument - so tight it is in fact circular. "Liberals" have to engage in sophistry and circular logic because the facts and logic on their side just do not add up. And they do not add up because at root what they are selling is a cargo cult - the conceit that enough criticism of "the rich" will force them to disgorge untold wealth and shower it on the poor. In contrast to the reality that "the poor" of America are rich by historical standards, and "the rich" generally get well off by self discipline and effective leadership in society which accumulates wealth over time, and usually not without setbacks.

IMHO there are two ways to look at the issue of "bias". First, the journalist is unaware of their own bias and simply produces biased reports naturally. -OR- secondly the journalist uses the profession as a front to create ad copy (sow fear uncertainty and doubt) used to promote their political client (DNC).

IMHO it is a subtle combination of the two explanations: Journalists are undoubtedly, like most of us, able to compartmentalize enough that they do not actually realize the implication of their own perspective. They are taught that "If it bleeds, it leads," to report on "Man Bites Dog" and not on "Dog Bites Man" - and to always make deadline. Those things will help make their newspaper profitable. Now if anyone other than a journalist (or other member of the complaining professions, such as plaintiff bar, unionist, etc.) said anything which was predicated on the assumption that whatever was good for their business was good for the country, journalists would come down on that person like the hounds of Hell. But journalists have internalized the idea that their business is uniquely important to the national interest. So they have systematically blinded themselves to the fact that a self-interested perspective is embedded in those rules of journalism.
And being unable to see their own perspective hiding in plain sight, journalists do not see their own perspective when other complainers project the same perspective. To them it isn't a perspective, it's just what is - the natural order of things. Journalists assign positive labels to everyone who projects journalism's arrogant, negative, superficial perspective - other journalists are "objective," and simpatico non journalists are "liberal" or "moderate" or "progressive." Journalists don't think of those "liberals" as clients, they just think of them as right minded people just like themselves. People who could get a job as a journalist tomorrow, and in that instant would become "objective."

If the the second scenario is true (which I happen to believe and observation supports), then the concept of "bias" is misleading in that it never addresses the real issue which is the MSM are not in anyway affiliated with objective journalism/news reporting but instead are a network of marketing firms, as unobjective as they can be for their client.

Bias is indeed misleading, since journalists (at least print journalists) have an unambiguous right to have and print their own perspective. That is not a bias - but the fact that they actually think they are objective is a screaming bias if there can ever be said to be such a thing.

"bias" to me is a term perpetuated by the left which serves to A) frustrate conservatives (time and energy wasted) B) hide the true nature of their business model: Marketing Firm (with DNC as their single political client)

It is exactly the case that journalists prefer to be charged with "bias." They can respond in high dudgeon that you have insulted them. If you point out their perspective, that is less of an option for them. It means the same thing operationally, of course . . .

Why Journalists Are Not Above the Law
Commentary ^ | Feb. '07 | Gabriel Schoenfeld

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.